From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> Subject: Re: the o/o gulf Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:51:10 -0800 All good points Rene. Is the subject the 'on' and 'off' gulf war, or the 'ontic' and 'ontological' gulf? I definately agree with you. You are wise indeed. In The Hermenuetics of Factiticy, Heidegger discusses the 'dasein' of the chair. But he also goes to great length in my opinion on the family dinner table. Now my understanding is that a family table is a 'unique' table (unless you are Goldie Hawn - who incidentally has multiple family tables) with it's own history and destiny. The idea that the table is a Ikea brand is distinction which is primarily 'ontical' rather than 'ontological'. I also believe that US has mixed motives for attacking Bagdad with Tomahawk missiles. For instance Bush has stated that they will minimize civilian causalties and fatalities; however 42 missiles were launched, and some have hit civilian targets intentionally. I the US was primarily interested in conducting a 'just war', then it would not be acting this way. Pre-emptive strikes targetting communications and government facilities - rather than airstrips, bunkers, and known military targets - appears to be what is called a 'strategic' measure meant to disrupt any and all governance. When we venture to discuss the ontological structure of war, then we need to assess the principles of a 'just war' versus an 'unjust war'. Since up to 170 nations have demonstrated a dislike and opposition against the US action in Iraq, it could be demonstrated that the US has not acknowledged, at this incipient stage, of proving and going on the record as being responsible for the damages inflicted against property and life. Rumsfeld and Bush have stated that the US will not be in Iraq one more day after they complete their military acts. In essence the US has demonstrated that it will not pay nor compensate innocent Iraqis' for the damage they inflict in Iraq. Also the are arguing that there is a fund which the UN has access of about $40 billion which should be used for reconstruction. This figure is not accurate since it reflects funds collected over a 6 year period and much of this has already been spent on humanitarian aid in the form of food and medicines. One ontological structure or 'meaning' here is that collectively there is a lot of 'deception' or 'failure to disclose' which has been exposed by experts around the world. The US currently does not respect the inherent right of innocent people to claim for suffering, loss and and deprivation caused by itself; which repeats what I suggested earlier, that the US is not responsible in any way for it's impure motives and acts. For instance, the Twin Cities of Japan which it destroyed was unjustified (there were no military personnel in these cities), did not compensate a single victim nor administer an humanitarian aid. It did however send research personnel to investigate the medical impacts to humans (it spent millions photographing and documenting the personal injuries, but failed utterly to feed, provide medicines to the victims). as ever john foster --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005